Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and Routers
draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-10
Discuss
Yes
(Jari Arkko)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Abstain
No Record
(Ron Bonica)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
David Ward Former IESG member
Discuss
Discuss
[Treat as non-blocking comment]
(2008-12-10)
Unknown
The document specifies that it is to cover the specification for mobile routers as well as hosts. In fact, nothing is called out for routers. In particular, given there are many issues for mobile routers and routers in mobile ad hoc networks; I would have expected at least references to issues associated with mobile routers. The term "router" is used only twice in the document.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-12-18)
Unknown
The OPS-DIR review by Tina Tsou raised a number of questions and pointed to nits. Although none of them seem a show stopper, I believe that they should be addressed for better clarity and quality of this document: 1. In section 5.1, 5.4.2, 6.2.1, vanilla occurs 6 times and is ambiguous. Clarification would be welcome to explain what is meant. 2. In section 5.3, it is mentioned that if the mobile node is not active, it will send binding update to the home agent. It is not clear how home agent operates upon receiving the binding update message? Also if the mobile node is not active, does it mean the mobile node is not reachable? 3. In section 5.3, it is mentioned that the mobile node maintains NAT binding, if the mobile node is not reachable, then it need not to refresh the NAT binding. What is confusing here is that NAT devices also maintains NAT binding associated with the mobile node, so if the mobile node is not reachable, will the mobile node refresh the NAT binding in itself or in NAT on the path between the mobile node and the home agent? Moreover if the mobile node is not reachable, does it mean the mobile node changes the port or private address? Clarification would be welcome. 4. It is not clear what’s the difference for NAT keep alive between the mobile node behind NAT and the home agent behind NAT.
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-12-10)
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
(was No Record, Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
Abstain
Abstain
(2009-02-27)
Unknown
While IPsec may have been a reasonable solution for the security requirements of RFC 3775, this draft (and the multiplecoa draft) IMHO clearly show that IPsec is not an appropriate solution for these MIPv6 extensions. (Or put another way: back then, the problem did look like a nail, and IPsec was an appropriate hammer to solve it. The problems we're now dealing are different, and don't resemble nails any more.) However, it is not realistic to ask this draft to fix the situation; thus, I am balloting "abstain".
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
(was No Objection)
No Record
No Record
()
Unknown